Seems like visual artists carry more baggage regarding being true to their art than other genres. Sure the rockers with message music from the Sixties and early Seventies who later turned up sponsored by beer or credit card companies took some early criticism. Where they took it was right to the bank. Today, does anybody care if the likes of Bob Dylan and U2 are selling travel packages to their concerts?
Are film makers, actors, or other artists held accountable in the court of public opinion for being as successful as they can be?
Still, visual artists are left to worry about their reputation. Oh, he painted to make money, She made her work to satisfy her collectors. LIke that is a sin. I would agree that Andy Warhol did not have in mind that his "Green Car Crash" piece was created with the thought it would be so collectible it would later sell at a Warhol record auction price of $71 million plus. Nevertheless, he pandered to his collectors and the media in the most masterful of ways and his ability to do so helped create the aura that turned into the frenzy of buying for his work at the May 16, 2007 Christie's auction.
Somehow, visual artists stlll struggle with the notion of being true to their art. Many find themselves painting under aliases so to disguise their more commercial work. Heaven forbid it be revealed they painted pieces with the commercial market in mind. The concept lingers on in the digital fine art reproduction arena where artists continue to sell limited editions.
Yes, I realize galleries are addicted to limited editions as a marketing tool and I agree what is scarce is precious. But, I firmly believe that the idea that a piece of art is part of a limited edition is not the chief buying criteria for most buyers. They want to buy it because it fills some other need. Whether it's the proverbial couch piece, or more romantically because it stirs some emotions within them that compells them to want to own and live with the work.
Today, fine art digital printing has evolved to the point that we can now make the piece to the size most appropriate for the buyers needs. It can be reproduced endlessly with the reverse promise of previous technologies in that the likelihood is the later pieces will be better made due to improving techniques, substrates, inks, dyes, equipment and software. I will contend more money is lost selling limited editions than is made. Some will argue most artists rarely sell out their editions anyway, so what is the harm. Good point. I think every artist with his or her salt has at least one or two pieces that have the ability to sell well for years. Problem is, there is no way of knowing in advance which piece or pieces those will be. When the art is limited, the chance it will sell well for years is lost.
Here's an example. An artist creates an edition of 300 at $1,000 retail for a total of $300,000. If the same piece sold 1,000 pieces at $750 retail, the net is more than double at $750,000. I don't think artists have to discount 25% to sell unlimited pieces. Maybe 10%, perhaps 15% at the most. If the work has intrinsic value based on all the things people consider when they buy art, e.g., reputation, content, size, market and so forth, then it will sell at its "value" without the gimmickry of a limited edition. The mystique of the "giclee" monicker does not alter the fact that any reasonably sophistcated buyer realizes anything that comes out of a computer can be reproduced at will.
When you offer a limited edition digital print, you have to sell the veracity of the artist, the publisher and the gallery that the edition size will be honored. Why not sell on the intrinsic value of the piece? You can still sign, even number for that matter. Just don't limit. The numbering convention is yours to conceive. I suggest 1/oe, 2/oe, where oe equals open edition. The early numbers could still become collectible. Perhaps some other numbers such as the artist's birthday, the year the piece was made and so could make them collectible in later years. Who knows what aspects collectors will put on anything years from now. But if the work holds up, you can bet some of the signed open edition pieces will have greater value than others.
I have written about this concept before and promise to continue to work to engage the art print community in the dialog and discussion of the merits of unlimited digital prints. In thinking about this idea, it struck me as odd that "selling out" in the sense of following the money when creating art is a huge no-no for artists, yet having a "sold out" edition, or "selling out" an edition was something to strive for. Why she has four "sold out" editions. It becomes a comical twist of words, or an art double entendre, if you will. My advice is to seriously consider how to sell more art rather than concentrating on selling less in the form of limited editions.
All said, I do think there is a place for limiteds. If the edition is truly limited. For instance, an artist creates a small edition of hand-embellished (by the artist) pieces to sell in a low edition of 100 or less, that idea has merit. Even then, I would stipulate that an open edition of the same piece is available as an open edition piece available in the size most appropriate for the collectors needs.
Bottom line is the the bottom line, it's your money, your family and your future. If you are reading this, you very likely aren't thinking about how to get a show into MOMA. More power to you if you are, but reality for most artists who are full-time is they need to maximize their earning capacity without "selling out." I think by limiting digital print editions, artists are selling themselves out of being allowed to make as much money on reproduction as the market will bear. If that' s the case, there is something wrong with this picture (pun intended) and it ought to be fixed.